I had wondered about that as well. But if LE allowed the dad to drive the car off instead of impounding it to search for trace evidence, I have a feeling that they did not treat it as a crime scene. That would mean tire tracks, foot prints and signs of a scuffle might have been walked all over.
I can't understand allowing the dad to drive the car. That baffles me to no end.
Several years ago I worked at a company that was in a cul-de-sac of a dead end road. No houses for about 3/4 of a mile from the main road to our building. One morning when I came in just before shift change in the plant I saw a 7-8 year old car parked. It didn't belong to any of our employees that I knew of. I was the first one in the admin office and I called the plant - about 100 yds away - which had a 2 man night crew and asked if it belonged to any of them, knowing they usually parked next to the plant. It didn't belong to any of them and they didn't see it being parked. I called the police. They stated I shouldn't touch it and keep others away till a unit could arrive. The officers came, put on gloves, checked the plates to see if it was reported stolen. It wasn't. They dusted it for prints and then had it impounded. In short they treated it as suspicious and tried to get some evidence. This is a police dept not much bigger than MB. I never heard anymore about what became of the incident.
Why someone didn't do that here is beyond me.